Talk:Somatic experiencing

Proposed merge: Peter A. Levine → Somatic experiencing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been posted at WP:RFCL and as requested I am here to close. There is a very clear consensus that Peter A. Levine should not have a standalone article. The only actual point in dispute here is whether to merge or redirect. That being said, this appears to be a semantic point. Most of the editors who have !voted for a merge acknowledge that Peter A. Levine is bereft of legitimate content and seek to merge and the only person who hasn't changed their merge !vote describes the worthwhile parts of the other page as being composed of "(scant) biographical content". I'll close as redirect Peter A. Levine to Somatic experiencing for now. If the lone merge !voter actually wants to include parts of that article in this article then we can describe this ex post facto as a merge, but unless that actually happens it makes more sense to describe the consensus here as being in favour of redirecting. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

---

It doesn't look like Peter A. Levine is notable for a standalone article; suitable content should be merged to Somatic experiencing. ––FormalDude talk 08:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• why levine is not notable for a standalone article, but Gabor Maté already? I do not understand. a specialist should take a look next to meSchutz67 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Schutz, we're deciding notability based off of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Just to clarify, notable doesn't mean the same thing on Wikipedia as it does in the rest of the world. Someone can be a beloved hero in their community but not have a wikipedia article; it's actually the norm. The premise here is that for a lot of people, they will be more interested in what Levine created than in the details of his life. That's not a reflection on him, it's just the nature of contributing something to the world. We also tend not to prefer to use the guidelines when figuring out notability, rather than comparing to other articles. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree, it looks like he's not notable by any of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NACADEMIC. And all of the vaguely interesting content is about somatic experiencing, so it would be most useful to a reader to merge the articles. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Merge The (scant) biographical content would make more sense here per WP:NOPAGE. Alexbrn (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that discussing Peter Levine here would be appropriate. He is virtually synonymous with Somatic Experiencing.Vanguard666 (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• peter levine has worked for decades to develop Somatic experiencing SE. he created it. people want a short info about the person, not info about his method and somewhere in-between an info about him. it would take to much time reading. SE is only one click away.
  To place the page peter levine under somatic expricing would be like placing the page albert einstein under the theory of relativity. people come across the name peter levine and want to read who he is. forwarding them to SE would confuse people. not everyone who is interested in peter levine is automatically also interested in SESchutz67 (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC) Note to closer: Schutz67 is the creator of the page that is the subject of this discussion.
  • I don't think Einstein and Peter Levine are comparable figures for a biographical POV. Alexbrn (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I haven't compared Einstein and Peter Levine as figures for a biographical POV. Levine's influence and effect in the field of trauma therapy are already outstanding. what will it look like in 100 years, do you think you know?Schutz67 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect, do not merge. The content is probably copyvio, and definitely unencyclopedic in tone. XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @XOR'easter: My proposal is to only merge the suitable content, which, in my opinion, is basically just his occupation. ––FormalDude talk 06:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Somatic experiencing already mentions his occupation ("trauma therapist"). What else is there to add? XOR'easter (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect only - I'm changing my support since I agree with XOR'easter that there's essentially nothing suitable to merge. Pinging participants @Alexbrn and @Xurizuri to see if they may change their vote in order to reach consensus. ––FormalDude talk 01:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not understand. a specialist in Therapy should take a look next to meSchutz67 (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Changing opinion to redirect. Everything worth keeping from the Levine article (i.e. he developed SE) is already in the SE article, so I'm happy with that.--Xurizuri (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect. Not that this confers any special authority or status, but I wrote the first draft of the Somatic Experiencing article, and the author of the Peter Levine page contacted me and we agreed that the pages should be merged, but neither of us did the work to make that happen. FYI. I also agree at this point that a redirect is the most appropriate thing. Having just reread the Somatic Experiencing page, it seems to me that it currently fails the NPOV test and perhaps the Original research test. IMHO it's very argumentative and derogatory. Lcuff (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is WP:FRINGE/woo isn't it? Looks like it's being touted without any decent research ever having been done. Alexbrn (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism. ––Formal ^talk 04:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sourcing

I request that Alexbrn give specifics of how certain articles do not meet Wikipedia source criteria. Alexbrn has consistently removed artices from peer reviewed Journal Frontiers in Neuroscience and Frontiers in Psychology with the sole reason given as "fringe" source. Given these journals high citation inpact score, I know of no reason they should ve deemed fringe or in amy way violate wikipedia guidelines. Additionalky, descrptions of SE theory, backed up by multiple secondary sources, including peer reviewed journals, are removed by Alexbrn with the simple explanation "gobbledygook". I request that Alexbrn give nore solid rationsle for his edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanguard666 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, if you have a specific source in mind could you specify what it is please? Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I reference your deletion of Frontiers in Psychology and Frontiers in Neurosciene. I am confused why you are asking for clarification here, given that i specifically noted these on your personal talk page? Additionally, I am requesting that you give more specific reasons for your last edit removing an academic thesis. Since that thesis is not making medical claims, only conducting a lit review claiming that no research has been conducted to support some of SE's biological claims, there is no reason for it to be removed. Academic Theses' are not barred by wikipedia.Vanguard666 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't use a thesis for anything in this area. Could you please say what Frontiers ARTICLE you mean? Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are the edits I am requesting clarification on.

1061468078

1075636717

1057810158

1057708340

1055584173

1048072919 Vanguard666 (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, I am requesting why, based on Wiki source guidelines, you justify the Thesis' removal. You seem to be stating personal preference not guidelines. Vanguard666 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

additionally 'Gibberish' or 'woo', is not citing guidelines. If something is quoted from a peer reviewed journal, why do you get the sole discretion of deeming it "gibberish"? Vanguard666 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP English Wikipedia only uses theses in rare cases. I looked at first of your disputed edits, Special:Diff/1061468078 which is of another editor fixing a typo. What. If you have a query about an ARTICLE, for the third time please say WHAT THAT ARTICLE IS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not see "only in rare cases" described in the guidelines. It does say used "with care" but you have not given a justification fir why, in this circumstance the Thesis citation cannot be used with care. Since it is only making a claim that current research has not evaluated a biological claim, and not made a biological claim, I beleive the use of this reference is appropriate. I have specifically gone through the trouble of specifying all the reversions you have made to my edits which i am requesting clarification on. I am sorry if i accidentally copied one incorrectly. I have specifically mentioned the actual peer reviewed Journal (Frontiers in Psychology). The specific article is easily obtained by looking at your own edit history, but here is one of your specific comments for edit 1048072919 "Seems like goobledegook from fringe source without sane context". I am asking you to justify claiming Fromtiers in Psychology is a fringe source and your personal opinion that it is "gobbledygook". I am requesting you be more specific generally in your removal in content in the future and adhere to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal Vanguard666 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1048072919 is a bot edit. I conclude you are either incompetent or trolling. I will not respond further unless you answer my question about what specific source(s) you mean. It's not my job to indulge WP:SPAs in their dubious crusades. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The edit revision is ascribed to you Alexbrn. Please refrain from using insulting language(i.e. incompetent). Additionally with the amount of clear research i do for this page, from a neutral point of view, providing cutations that both bolster and ones that critique the method, I am clearly not a troll or a bot. Why does that specific edit appear under your name (i do see a sub bot reference under your name). Please respectfully educate me on my "incompetence. Vanguard666 (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Admin_help Vanguard666 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I will be deactivating my profile. No one should be treated with this kind of incivility when requesting clarification of deletion of their posts. Alexbrn shows clear stonewalling behavior in answering civily asked questions and respectful contesting of their removal of content with specific regeremces to the actual sourced content/deletion number. I engaged in rational inquiry and discussion. No one should be treated in a demeaning manner and certainly if such behavior is yolerated it will not lead to new users becoming editors of other content. Vanguard666 (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears Alexbrn, that you may wish to evaluate your reversions according to Wiki reversion policy. Wikipedia:Reverting - Wikipedia

In perusing your "talk" page Alexbrn, it appears you have a similar style with other contributors and they have taken similar exception to the manner in which you revert edits. Maybe some self reflection is in order since this is a common feedback you get.

Additionally, when one does a "User Contribution Search" of this page using "Alexbrn" you get a list of contributions that all contain the numbers Vanguard666 listed. I think that may be the misunderstanding as these as these were reversions back to the number listed not the actual reference to the edit. Seems like an innocent and understandable mistake. But certainly this should be easily ascertained by someone who claims superior competence. I don't see the need for derogatory engagement here for a good faith effort to improve an article and engage in discussion of a reversion. It seems to have lost Wiki an editor, which is what is cautioned in the (Wikipedia:Reverting - Wikipedia). It doesn't seem as if Alexbrn has contributed much substance here besides reverting others contributions with little adherence or respect for dialogue and explanation for their reversions. Alexbrn's last reversion took place in 2 minutes from the time the original post was made. That is a short amount of time to give someone the respect of carefully reviewing their contribution and the validity of its sourcing. 96.87.52.246 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

bias in this article

Since it’s not possible to edit this article, I would like to address a few things:

1.       The scoping literature review from 2021 has been misquoted. The result was this: “Findings provide preliminary evidence for positive effects of SE on PTSD-related symptoms. Moreover, initial evidence suggests that SE has a positive impact on affective and somatic symptoms and measures of well-being in both traumatized and non-traumatized samples. […] Yet, an overall studies quality assessment as well as a Cochrane analysis of risk of bias indicate that the overall study quality is mixed.”

However, when I tried to correct it, it was immediately reverted under the pretense that it didn’t appear to be constructive.

2.       Experimenter’s bias is a general problem in empirical studies on psychotherapy and to be neutral, it shouldn’t be used to only make the kind of therapies look unscientific that wikipedia editors don’t approve of. It would be much more constructive to just inform about every type of therapy and add some info on the bias in empirical studies, especially as the effect of psychotherapy also depends on the individual therapist - client relationship regardless of the approach. Also, it is common for therapists to combine different approaches, f. ex. SE with CBT, SE with familiy systems therapy, EMDR with CBT etc. and it should be up to the reader of these articles to decide what makes sense to them and what doesn't.

Here are some analyses addressing the problem of bias and limitations of different therapies:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735811001395

Ioannidis JP. Most psychotherapies do not really work, but those that might work should be assessed in biased studies. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2016 Oct;25(5):436-438. doi: 10.1017/S2045796015000888. Epub 2016 Mar 8. PMID: 26952766; PMCID: PMC7137590.

Corrigan FM, Hull AM. Neglect of the complex: why psychotherapy for post-traumatic clinical presentations is often ineffective. BJPsych Bull. 2015 Apr;39(2):86-9. doi: 10.1192/pb.bp.114.046995. PMID: 26191439; PMCID: PMC4478904.

van der Kolk BA. Clinical implications of neuroscience research in PTSD. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Jul;1071:277-93. doi: 10.1196/annals.1364.022. PMID: 16891578.

https://jonathanshedler.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Shedler-2018-Where-is-the-evidence-for-evidence-based-therapy.pdf

3.        I find it interesting that after merging Peter A. Levine with Somatic Experiencing, there is no mention of his credentials, f. ex. that he has a PHD in medical biophysics and one in psychology, that he was a stress consultant for NASA, served on the APA “Presidential Initiative on responding to large scale disasters and ethno-political warfare”and his work has been widely acknowledged by other psychotherapists. For example, he has received a lifetime achievement award by the psychotherapy networker and one by the US association for Body Psychotherapy as well as the honorary Reiss Davis Chair in Child Psychiatry. One might think that all of this was left out to discredit his work.

https://www.somaticexperiencing.com/about-peter

https://www.psychnetworker.org/2022/networker-lifetime-achievement-award/

https://usabpmembers.net/about-us/usabp-pioneer-awards/lifetime-achievement-award/

https://2021.traumasummit.com/speaker/peter-levine/

4.       Stephen Porges has already addressed the criticism and even though not everything included in the Polyvagal Theory has been proven, that doesn’t make the therapy method Somatic Experiencing “fringe science”, otherwise every type of psychotherapy should be labelled as such, since the developers of other approaches haven’t been able to prove all their assumptions either.

https://www.polyvagalinstitute.org/background

5.       The fact that body psychotherapies are put under the same category as conspiracy theories doesn’t make any sense unless most wikipedia editors are immensely biased regarding somatic psychology and trauma therapy. Psych-luck (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit: After reading articles about the Skeptics movement and wikipedia, now I understand why it's so hard to edit articles on trauma therapy.

Somatic Experiencing Trademarked?

I was making some edits in this article and noticed variation in how "Somatic Experiencing" is spelled so I changed it all to Somatic Experiencing". After doing more research I've noticed it is also trademarked. Some of the sources that do trademark the therapy could be bias. I was wondering if someone could advise on the spelling and also if a trademark does need to be added? Connorcp (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)